bargaining law, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson issued official statements criticizing respected members of her Court. The stinging unprecedented dissent accusedthe conservative majority of the Court of making “numerous errors of law and fact” and stated that they “set forth their own version of facts without evidence.” She wrote that “They should not engage in disinformation,” and called their view “long on rhetoric and long on story-telling that appears to have a partisan slant.” The Chief Justice stated that this decision opens the Court “to the charge that the majority has reached a pre-determined conclusion not based on the facts and the law.”

What kind of leadership is this?

The Chief Justice’s job is one of upholding and respecting our democratic system of government, of fostering communication and unity in our highest court, not of fomenting division when a closely split ruling occurs, dividing liberal and conservative Judges of the Court.

Justice Ann Walsh Bradley

To further inflame the situation, now Justice Bradley (liberal), has accused Justice Prosser (conservative), of assaulting and choking her in the presence of 5 other Justices! The correct procedure for such a complaint would be through legal channels, and the incident should not be discussed publicly before the investigation is complete, as any lawyer should know. However, Justice Bradley made this accusation through the liberal media, and has not yet filed any official legal complaints in the 2 weeks since the supposed incident.

The conservative judges, as befits the legal profession, are not giving details to the press. Justice Prosser stated his confidence that he will be cleared with investigation. “Confidential sources” seem to indicate that Bradley has one witness supporting her claims, while 4 witnesses support Prosser’s innocence. Yet Madison’s

I have been struggling to assemble information on the latest happenings in Wisconsin’s dysfunctional Supreme Court in the absence of clear facts.

Now that I have managed to unearth facts that Madison’s media is unwilling to divulge, I can paint a more accurate picture.

Bottom line, for those who are impatient, is that liberal Justice Bradley seems to have used Supreme Court level Alinsky tactics. –She physically attacked Justice Prosser, turned the tables by accusing HIM of what she had done, lied about the incident, leaked reports of the “event” to the obliging Bill Lueders of (George Soros-funded) Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, and now has the assistance of Madison’s media in smearing Justice Prosser and calling for his termination, in the hopes that the liberal 3 would shift the balance of the other conservative 4 judges in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. With conservative Governor Walker at the helm, this seems to be a pointless pursuit.

The details of the sparring were uncovered and reported by Christian Schneider and can be found at the National Review. If you read just one reference, this would be the one to read.

Long story short: a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice named Ann Bradley has apparently tried to claim that another Supreme Court Justice, David Prosser, “choked” her.

The story had been leaked to a George Soros muckraking group, and then the incident seemed to get turned on its head when other witnesses came forth to indicate that while Prosser did put his hands up and touch Bradley’s neck, it is because she was coming at him with fists raised, meaning the contact was defensive in nature, and Bradley was the aggressor.

The plot appears to be thickening now, with news that Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson may have had a hand in orchestrating the leak in an attempt to get the conservative Prosser impeached.

As the investigation moves forward, it appears than instead of collecting a conservative scalp, that the two liberal Wisconsin SCOTUS justices may face impeachment instead. If they are impeached—and that is far from certain at this point—Republican Governor Scott Walker will have the opportunity to add two conservative justices to the bench.

It appears that the plot to frame up Prosser has backfired spectacularly.

I can only wish for such a happy ending for all of convicted felon Soros’ investments in deception.

This report of two liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, one the Chief Justice, attempting to smear and discredit a conservative colleague with lies, is symptomatic of a more general dissolution of integrity among Democrats in Madison, Wisconsin today. The problems with Madison’s Democrats, in turn, are reflective of a growing general dissolution of Democrat integrity in the United States.

Most of us trust automatically that respected high officials support the laws they were appointed/elected to administer and that their goals include the peaceful, fair and tranquil functioning of society.

There is, however, a growing new philosophy/methodology, particularly among some in high office, which attempts to circumvent the legal democratic process in order to implement radical change rapidly against the wishes of the majority.

The new methodology welcomes and creates chaos, in the knowledge that it is easier to implement change during chaos. The new philosophy spurns dialogue and advocates polarization, demonization of opponents, and dispensation of traditional moral constraints such as truthfulness or limiting oneself to civilized behavior.

Saul Alinsky

The new methodology is patterned after what has become known as Alinsky tactics. Radical Democrats, including President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, teachers unions, and numerous Wisconsin Democrats have been implementing these tactics more and more often, particularly in recent months.

For example, in Madison, 14 Democrat legislators violated the Wisconsin Constitution by fleeing to Illinois to prevent a quorum on legislation they opposed. Protesters at the Madison State Capitol have adopted new aggressive techniques, including blowing air horns in Republican Senator’s and in conservative demonstrators’ ears. Unions have shipped aggressive out-of-state protesters into Madison by the thousands, while Madison’s liberal Mayor called off the Madison police. Radicals brag about “peaceful” protests, while Republican Senators are being chased around the Capitol building by hundreds of protesters, unhindered by police, and damage/security bills mount to over $8 million. Madison’s police and firefighter’s unions, as well as Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider), have joined in support of teachers’ unions that are bleeding the State dry with benefits which radically exceed what other Wisconsin workers get. Republican Senators have received death threats for carrying out campaign promises and attempting to pass responsible legislation. Wisconsin’s liberal Secretary of State has helped to stall publication of the collective bargaining legislation repeatedly, enabling unions to rush through new contracts before implementation of the law. Liberal judges have procrastinated making decisions on the pending legislation, taking vacation, and making bad rulings, which must be heard, reprimanded and reversed by the cooler-headed individuals on the Supreme Court. Wisconsin’s media, seriously dominated by radial liberals, publishes only glowing reports of the radicals, omitting any of the reality mentioned above. The dirty tactics observed in Madison are overwhelming.

I have been so appalled by the chaos and trampling of democracy I have witnessed in Madison recently that I have written numerous articles documenting and referencing the above facts on my website, since February.

I don’t jump to the defense of people in the absence of conclusive evidence. However, in the light of the above facts, particularly those collected by Christian Schneider, I am willing to stick out my neck and venture to say that there is only one logical interpretation of what happened between Justices Bradley and Prosser in Madison on June 13th, the story which was leaked to the liberal press by Justice Bradley and which has spread like wildfire in the national news, accusing Justice Prosser of choking her. Radical Democrats, yet again, are using Alinsky tactics in an effort to further their (now minority) agenda by eliminating a conservative voice from the Supreme Court.

Prosser was smeared with lies previously by Democrats during his campaign , and his installation was delayed by Democrat challenges and recounts after the election. The latest June 14 decision of the Supreme Court approving the collective bargaining legislation was almost made in the absence of Judge Prosser, when Democrat JoAnne Kloppenburg threatened to sue yet a second time for recounts, which would have delayed Judge Prosser’s appointment yet again.

Aside from the original reports accusing Justice Prosser of choking his colleague, Madison’s media is not correcting the skewed initial reports. They are still spreading the dirt and calling for Prosser’s removal: Madison’s Cap Times wrote an editorial entitled “What to do about high court’s Prosser problem” yesterday (6-29-11), in which they suggested that Justice Prosser was “no longer fit to serve.”

The truth cannot be found in Madison media, with very few exceptions. – go to the National Review for truth in reporting.

Finally, it is interesting to note that Bradley did not file charges against Justice Prosser, which would have put her credibility at risk when the truth was revealed. She just leaked the fictitious smear story to newspapers to foment liberal frenzy, a la Alinsky tactics. This is certainly not the type of behavior expected from a Supreme Court Judge, or anyone whose job function is to provide reasoned deliberation on matters that distinguish our society from anarchy.

More participants at "Walkerville" today, ~ 300

Wisconsin Supreme Court Upholds Collective Bargaining Law
or
“My ears are still ringing!”

Yesterday, prior to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s approval of Governor Walker’s collective bargaining law, the unions did muster up a bit more activity in fizzled-out “Walkerville,” attracting about 300 demonstrators, primarily members of various unions.

I visited the Capitol at noon to document events, and was subjected by a liberal enthusiast to an air-horn blowing repeatedly 12 inches from my ear, presumably to punish me for interviewing some Walker supporters, which is what I was doing at the time.

Air Horn

A slide show follows below, images from Capitol Square yesterday afternoon. About 300 demonstrators were there, numerous unions were represented, and there were lots of noisemakers – vuvuzelas, plastic buckets, air horns, and chanting – as soon as members of the press appeared.

My air-horn toting friend retreats

My air-horn toting friend was surprised by my reaction to his air horn; rather than being unpleasant, grabbing his air-horn, or cursing him, this grey old lady picked up my camera and started clicking away at him. First, he turned his face away from the camera, but continued honking in my ear. As I continued clicking away with the camera, he eventually backed away and went somewhere else to torture another victim.

The Governor Walker supporters pointed out to me that yesterday was Flag Day . Their sign read “Raise your flag for Gov. Walker,” and they were waving little 12-inch American flags. The group included a public school teacher who was opposing her union’s actions, a retired nurse, and a retired U.S. Marine. They had driven in from an outlying town to show some support for Governor Walker. Theirs were the only flags visible on Flag Day.

Governor Walker supporters- teacher, nurse, Marine

One Walker supporter my age told me that she was approached by a man sputtering at her, informing her that he comes to these events to punch the teeth out of the bodies of fat people like her. She didn’t even look fat, but looked very pleasant, ladylike and motherly, sitting quietly on the edge of a concrete wall and waving her American flag. She had come to support Governor Walker, stating that we must first stop the fiscal bleed going on in our State; later there would be time for civil discourse regarding the details of union contracts.

MC: young man in pink

Announcers were on the Capitol steps behind us, calling for people to approach the Capitol doors to demand entrance inside. I did not see anyone responding. The announcer was a young man dressed in a filmy pink dress, signifying I have no idea what – Planned Parenthood again? Just looking for attention? Not sure whether he made a good spokesman for his cause.

.

Slide Show of Capitol Square on Flag Day, June 14, 2011:

The Supreme Court upheld limitation of collective bargaining law on the same day.

“Walkerville” or Ghost town?

How many participants and tents in “Walkerville?”

"Walkerville" Day 3, noon rally at the Capitol; where is everyone?

The “tent city” established in downtown Madison (by public unions in protest of the limitation of collective bargaining) is not a City at all, but a group which has shrunken to twelve overnight campers and some 20 empty tents. Many families are bigger than that.

This is not news. Even if Madison’s City Council permitted family reunions on Madison’s Capitol Square, all of Madison and Wisconsin would not want to read about it over morning coffee. Yet Madison’s media continues their sympathetic coverage of “Walkerville,” publishing close-up shots of individual (empty) tents and describing what the last family left camping at the Capitol had for dinner last night.

I live 3 miles from Capitol Square, and my parish Church is 3 blocks away. Irritated by completely nonobjective reporting on public union issues, I’ve tracked events myself and I’ve taken some photo tours around the Capitol (photos and links below).

.

"Walkerville" Day 3: row of empty tents

.

Is Walkerville really similar to Hooverville?

On a typical day, there are about 20 R.E.I.-type tents with electric fans and cases of Dasani outside, 30 attendees at a noontime rally dominated by hot pink Planned Parenthood T-shirts (WHAT does Planned Parenthood and abortion have to do with teachers unions?

Do teachers unions officially support the abortion of their future students?). There are typically 6 people carrying protest signs, a lone vuvuzela trumpeter, a lone plastic bucket beater, some posters showing vulgar comments, and very little else visible in downtown Madison. What IS visible resembles Yuppie Ghost Town more than it resembles Hooverville, after which unions named Walkerville.

.

Hooverville, 1932, Washington DC

.

.

.

.

It is somewhat shocking to compare teachers who have upper middle class lifestyles and benefits which dwarf those of the rest of America—shocking to compare these privileged individuals to the starving and jobless people of Hooverville during the Great Depression .

Hooverville 1932

Opposition to public unions growing

It is not surprising that support for public unions in Madison seems to have fizzled out.

A noise complaint against “Walkerville” was even filed with police by the wife of Democrat

Senator Risser

minority leader Senator Fred Risser. Apparently the Senator and his wife live a block away from the Capitol Building, and the poor lady could not take the loud drumming noise any longer. Risser was one of the fourteen democratic senators who fled the state for Illinois in February to stall Walker’s proposed reduction of collective bargaining rights for most public employees. Risser also led the effort to impose sex education programs authored by Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider) on public school children in Wisconsin.

.

Vuvuzela: lone protester using volume to get attention

.

.

Debbie Brown, a retired state employee and Democrat writes (letter to the editor, Wisconsin State Journal) : Walkerville a tantrum, not a helpful event: “To the demonstrators (current state employees, graduate students who may not even be from Wisconsin, and educators), you are behaving like children, throwing tantrums because you’re not getting your way.”

.

.

Was this the drumming Mrs. Risser could not take when she called the police? Unbelievable volume this fellow achieved!

.

Where have all the protesters gone?

Why has support for public unions fizzled out since the massive demonstrations in downtown Madison in February?

Some speculations:

People may be tired of demonstrating. The novelty may have worn off. Reality is setting in. Walker is the face of reason and responsibility.

Unions may have run out of funds to bus thousands of protesters into Madison and to cover their expenses over extended periods of time.

Some teachers, particularly the younger ones, may have realized that their jobs are being sacrificed to the economy so that senior union members could retain their privileges (which they call “rights”). Union leadership has NOT been considering the welfare of ALL teachers, only that of senior teachers.

School is out – so teachers can no longer be paid to participate in union activities such as demonstrations. Now they would be giving up their vacation time or their summer job incomes (Yes, many teachers DO have summer jobs, despite the median teacher salary of $71,000 per year!).

UW Madison is out— the semester is over, and 40,000 undergraduates are gone from Madison dormitories just a few blocks away.

Few people want cutbacks or belt-tightening, including my family, which has already suffered 15% cuts here in Madison, Wisconsin. We don’t enjoy it.

However, when the choice is 15% cuts for everyone, versus senior workers (like me and my husband) hogging tenure and privileges while the young are fired, then we welcome the cuts. The American spirit of sharing burdens and walking together through hard times must prevail.

As people start to realize that protests are organized by senior public union officials who are not poor by any definition of the word, who are clinging to their luxurious bubble lifestyle of the past, while young teachers are losing their jobs and the rest of America carries an unfair share of the burden—as people realize these things, the support for public unions shrinks, and the support for Governor Walker grows.

I have great compassion for those who don’t want to give up the privileges they previously enjoyed, and for those who don’t want to give up their dreams of a cushy retirement. I belong to that group. However, the public union officials don’t seem to realize that at this point in the economy, if they cling to their very generous slice of pie, they are depriving others of having any pie (or bread, for that matter) at all.

As a woman, I have a right not to have my taxes spent on the killing of human beings and the damaging of women’s lives.

There is a new, much improved feminism which is superior to the old outdated feminism which demanded the destruction of what a woman values the most—her family.

Alan (name changed):

And the half that don’t agree with you Syte? Their voices matter less than yours? Abortion is legal whether or not you agree with it. You might want to revise your BS line about it being the same as killing a husband. Or was that “not intended to be a factual statement”? By your logic I have a right not to have my tax dollars go towards illegal foreign wars and gas subsidies. In a democracy you don’t always get what you want.

Syte:

Alan —

If you want democracy, the Gallup poll shows that 51% of Americans consider abortion to be morally wrong, while 39% find it morally acceptable. Not that public opinion can alter morality, but even on your terms, you lose.

BTW, despite your attempts to call pro-life opinions “BS”, morally, the “wrongness” of the killing of a pre-born child is not less than the killing of a husband. A human is a human, no matter how small.

Alan:

From the the exact same poll you keep posting 49% are Pro-Choice while a measly 46% are Pro-Life (or anti-choice as I like to call it). A human is a human sure but a fetus is a fetus and a zygote is a zygote and abortion is legal. Tell me again why Republicans did NOTHING while they controlled ALL of the federal government from 2001-2006? Keep fighting the good fight though if it makes you feel morally superior. It’s a fight you’ll never win. As soon as Republicans take action they lose this as a wedge issue. And that’s all this is. Republicans manipulating Christians.

Syte:

Alan –

No need to get so emotional. Perhaps YOU like to feel morally superior, but you have no grounds for throwing that accusation at me. It is possible to disagree with people and to debate the facts without feeling morally superior or turning it into a fight.

You might like to call pro-lifers “anti-choice,” but I refrain from calling you guys “pro-murder,” and I also point out that the only reason that you are debating with me today, and the only reason other readers are reading this, is that nobody killed US when we were zygotes, fetuses, pre-borns, or whatever terminology pleases you.

So what about the “choice” of the unborn child? The Constitution guarantees the right to “life, liberty and property.” Abortion takes away the first, fundamental right, life, without which there can be no further rights.

Just trying to put the facts out there. BTW, you misquoted the poll. You might concede that within the error margin of the Gallup poll, Americans have been pretty much 50/50 on pro-life and pro-choice for the last several years. Which, incidentally, is quite a change from the 33/56 ratio we had in 1996, fifteen years ago. Like it or not, Americans are rapidly turning pro-life, as they find out more about abortion and its effects on women, on children and on society.

Regarding majorities and abortion and why the Republicans have not reversed abortion, you should know better, unless you have not been following this issue. There has never been a vote on the legality of abortion in the United States, either by the people, or by the legislature. Abortion decisions, starting with Roe v. Wade, have been made by APPOINTED judges who were not elected, and who do not represent the will of the American people in any way. When a liberal president appoints a liberal judge, we are stuck with that liberal judge’s decisions for the tenure, regardless of the will of the people or of the legislature. Liberals have found a loophole in the Constitution, by which the will of the people can be circumvented. Glad to have the opportunity to point that out.

Alan:

Yeah that damned Liberal court we have now sure is making decisions based on the will of the people. Is that thier job? Their job is to interpret the law, or in Clarence thomas’ case sleep through the process while others interpret the law. I only pointed out the near 50/50 tie becasue you decided 51% in a poll on morality was enough to support your argument. Stating that a pre-born child is a life is also not a certainty. It’s not according to the US Constituiton or the bible so where do you get the idea that life starts at conception? What I want is for conservatives to stick to thier supposed values. Keep the government out of the uterus.

Syte:

Alan, you wrote: “Stating that a pre-born child is a life is also not a certainty….. not according to …..the bible.”

No? Not a certainty, unless you consult moral experts—including most major religions, the Dalai Lama, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Hindus, Islamic leaders, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, Oriental Orthodoxy, Orthodox Judaism, Protestant Churches (all Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic and other Evangelical denominations), the Southern Baptist Convention, the Roman Catholic Church, and thousands of other moral experts including over 1,000 pro-life groups that are not affiliated with religious denominations, who all oppose abortion on demand. These moral experts are not in vehement opposition to the surgical removal of a mole, but to the termination of a human life.

Also, your claim that a pre-born child may not be a “life” IS addressed in the Bible:

“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the INFANT leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost”- Luke 1:41

John the Baptist was a second-trimester baby at the time that he is described in the Bible as an “infant.” Christ, to whom John the Baptist was responding, was an embryo, probably a few weeks old. Surely, the Bible’s use of the term “infant,” and the ability of persons to recognize and respond to each other, indicates the existence of “life”?

Throughout our society our laws and language acknowledge the “life” of a pre-born child:

Murderers get charged with TWO counts of murder when they murder pregnant women.

A child only seems to lose human life status when he or she becomes “inconvenient,” and comes under consideration for abortion. Then the language of dehumanization kicks in, to whitewash what is really going on, and to make it more palatable.

Steven (name changed):

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage

Michaelangelo’s Moses

specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

“If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.”

—Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

Syte:

Steven—

Your quotation actually shows that under Mosaic Law a pregnant woman was acknowledged to be carrying a CHILD, and that causing the loss of that child “will surely be punished.”

HOW do you contort that into claiming that Mosaic Law approved abortion? Your quotation actually does the opposite of approving abortion. It acknowledges the human life existing in the woman and specifies punishment for the destruction of that life.

You are really grasping at straws.

Steven:

You fail to investigate the bible’s definition of life (breath) or its deafening silence on abortion. Moreover, the Mosaic law in Exodus 21:22-25, directly following the Ten Commandments, makes it clear that an embryo or fetus is not a human being.

Steven:

If you are an American christian, you may want to check out these groups:
American Baptist Churches-USA, American Ethical Union, American Friends (Quaker) Service Committee, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Episcopal Church, utheran Women’s Caucus, Moravian Church in America-Northern Province, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, United Synagogue of America, Women’s Caucus Church of the Brethren, YWCA, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Free Choice, Evangelicals for Choice

Syte:

Steven –

Of course, the fact that we are having this discussion is because you were not aborted as a child. This unequivocally proves that the developing fetus is a human being, unless I am now debating with just a huge mass of cells.

It is dangerous to interpret a “deafening silence” in your own favor. For example, before Sept 11th, there was a “deafening silence” in the U.S. and in our homeland security policies regarding flying airplanes into buildings. It cannot be inferred from that silence that the U.S. approved of flying airplanes into buildings. It is more reasonable to infer that such a heinous act was never imagined to be possible before Sept 11th.

So it is equally possible, and even more probable, that the relative silence of the Bible ( don’t dismiss my Luke 1:41 example above, which the vast majority of religions interpret as evidence that a preborn child is as human as the rest of us!), that the relative silence of the Bible on abortion was due to:

The violent and destructive nature of abortion, which rendered it an unthinkable act previously –something no one in their right mind would consider, akin to flying airplanes into buildings.

The tremendous medical risks associated with abortion without the assistance of modern technology, which was not available at the time.

Regarding your listing of some Christian Churches which allow abortion– the reason for the historical proliferation of Christian Churches in recent times is the fact that people who wished to justify what was previously considered to be morally wrong split off from the first Church – starting with divorce, now including abortion. Finding a church which approves your favorite transgression of previously accepted morality is not the best way to go, for anyone interested in what is REALLY right or really wrong.

We don’t usually make our own unprofessional conclusions before seeking a doctor, engineer, lawyer, or home inspection expert who agrees with us. We call in the experts, and ask THEM for guidance. So, too, with a church—if you decide for yourself whether abortion is morally right or wrong, then choose a marginal church according to your own conclusion, then you are wasting your time. You might as well call yourself Church and be done with it.

You are ignoring the fact that the vast majority of mainstream religions do not approve abortion. You misquote the policies of some churches – for example, the United Methodist Church does NOT condone abortion – “The United Methodist Church upholds the sanctity of human life and is reluctant to affirm abortion as an acceptable practice” – Wikipedia on Christianity and Abortion . Similarly, not all Presbyterian Churches allow abortion. Catholics for a Free Choice are not a church, but a miniscule minority group of dissidents within the Catholic Church, who have been excommunicated. Their membership comprises 0.001 of 1% of Catholics. I have not checked the rest of your list, but you might be wrong on quite a few of them.

about Syte

Syte Reitz grew up in Queens, New York, in a family of Lithuanian immigrants who fled Nazi and Soviet domination during World War II. Her education includes a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, and post-doctoral work at Princeton University. Syte left her job as an Assistant Professor at Oakland University, Michigan, to devote herself to raising her children, and ultimately homeschooled them through the end of high school. She is a member of Madison's Cathedral Parish.